Athiest's are wrong, God Exists, Science proves it

[Hellbound]

Hunh. Was my post that unclear?
I'm too lazy to fix the misunderstanding, but maybe someone else will bother.

Here's a hint: My use of the word "category."

I see.

So how is countering an argument believers actually make in the same category as crocoduck, then?

You all seem to insist that all arguments should be directed only to "official, theologian approved" arguments. The repeated message is to learn what believers actually believe.

I have. I was a believer. I was immersed in a culture of belief for over half my life, and still have significant contact with such.

The majority of believers have no idea what theologian arguments are. They rely on the common misconceptions and mistakes that are often pointed out here, that often lead to these debates by you and others.

So, tell me what, in that sequence, is incorrect?

 

[Hellbound]

Let me ask for calrification. As near as I can tell, the argumetns come down to these:

1. We aren't arguing against what believers actually believe.

2. What we should be arguing against is what the theologians are presenting.

Is that, essentially, a correct summation of the objections?

 

[marplots]

Let me ask for calrification. As near as I can tell, the argumetns come down to these:

1. We aren't arguing against what believers actually believe.

2. What we should be arguing against is what the theologians are presenting.

Is that, essentially, a correct summation of the objections?

I wouldn't use "should," and I'll add a couple in, but that's pretty good.

If there is a real question about something in the realm of theology, one ought to ask a theologist. Believers can answer stuff about their own beliefs and understandings, but can't be considered authoritative on doctrinal or exposition issues. It is perfectly fine to reject apologetic arguments, so long as the objection meets the standards in play. So yes, just as the creationist's "crocoduck" isn't a real argument against evolution, the Israelite's failure against iron chariots isn't a good argument against God.

Contradiction, in and of itself, doesn't defeat a position - it exposes where the situation needs clarification. One wouldn't reject physics because light is both a particle and a wave. Our root understanding is that contradictions merely tag the limits of how we understand things, a criticism of us, not the natural (or the divine).

One example of the "contradiction technique" is to apply bible literalism and point out mismatches. But accepting the bible as literal history means those mismatches are flaws in understanding what's written - the literal truth is a given in this construction. On the other hand, claiming it's not actually true by way of contradiction, only gets you to "what should I take as true and what not?" Which is what theologians argue about anyhow.

Finally, if an argument starts with "There is no God" then what's to talk about? If I claim there are no stars and everything we see out there is an illusion, what's the point of discussing astrophysics?

 

[Resume]

If there is a real question about something in the realm of theology, one ought to ask a theologist?

Which theology?

 

[marplots]

Which theology?

Start here: http://www.chabad.org/asktherabbi/default_cdo/jewish/Ask-the-Rabbi.htm

and then ask them who else you should talk to.

If I were interested in the properties of aluminum vs steel for an engine block, I'd do much the same. Maybe start with a chemist, then see what a metalurgist might say, and if it seemed helpful, ask a machinist or an auto mechanic. Whatever path I took, so long as I was honestly seeking an answer, I'd eventually find out what's understood. This works pretty well as a general method.

This isn't difficult. They are all networked in one broad savannah filled with human knowledge - all those who have come before us and explored the same things we are interested in.

 

[Resume]

This isn't difficult.

You are correct. I talk to theists every day. Catholics, southern baptists, pentecostals and guess what, they all tell me different stuff and stuff that differs from what these sophisticated theologists may have to say. And the stuff these folks hear from the pulpit differs from that as well.

I was raised catholic, attended parochial school and taken with the ceremony of it all, considered the priesthood. After puberty hit full force, and a seminary week, I got better.

 

[Hellbound]

I wouldn't use "should," and I'll add a couple in, but that's pretty good.

If there is a real question about something in the realm of theology, one ought to ask a theologist. Believers can answer stuff about their own beliefs and understandings, but can't be considered authoritative on doctrinal or exposition issues. It is perfectly fine to reject apologetic arguments, so long as the objection meets the standards in play. So yes, just as the creationist's "crocoduck" isn't a real argument against evolution, the Israelite's failure against iron chariots isn't a good argument against God.

Contradiction, in and of itself, doesn't defeat a position - it exposes where the situation needs clarification. One wouldn't reject physics because light is both a particle and a wave. Our root understanding is that contradictions merely tag the limits of how we understand things, a criticism of us, not the natural (or the divine).

One example of the "contradiction technique" is to apply bible literalism and point out mismatches. But accepting the bible as literal history means those mismatches are flaws in understanding what's written - the literal truth is a given in this construction. On the other hand, claiming it's not actually true by way of contradiction, only gets you to "what should I take as true and what not?" Which is what theologians argue about anyhow.

Finally, if an argument starts with "There is no God" then what's to talk about? If I claim there are no stars and everything we see out there is an illusion, what's the point of discussing astrophysics?

Okay, but the problem is that, general, the two options I listed are incompatible. What the general believers believe often has little to nothing in common with what the theologians may argue. Even in the Catholic Church, many parishoners have beliefs that are contrary to Catholic dogma. When you get into the Protestant faiths: Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, and so forth, it's rare to find even two ministers who agree on everything. The focus on a personal understandiong of Jesus means that, while there may be dogma, it's generally just paid lip service, and as long as everyone attends and doesn't rock the boat they can believe whatever they want in the details.

I do agree that if one is arguing against a religion in general, then you should take on the expert arguments. However, most of the arugments are with individual believers, and with the beliefs held by a majority of followers, and these rarely have anything in common with theologians.

I think this entire series of arguments ios not a category error, but a domain error. I argue at the level of most followers, not the .1% that are theologians with sophisticated arguments. However, if in a discussion with that .1%, I would address the arguments they are making.

But telling me "You're doing it wrong" when I'm making arguments aimed at the church memeber level, because I'm not addressing what Bovifeceal Aromatis wrote in the 16th century, or the pronouncemants of Pope John Billy Jim Bob Jones the 3rd (call me "Bubba"), is completely missing the point.

ETA: One other note. The wave/particle duality in physics is not a contradiciton, but a conceptual failure. Light has properties of both particles and waves, but there are no conflicts between it's observed properties. In religion, however, the contradictions aren't of the same nature. Not all of them rely on literalism, in the first place. In any case, as soon as one starts making decisions on which parts of the bible are allegory and which are literal, based on their personal interpretation, then they've already admitted that they follow their own moral code, not a God-given one. Not to mention that people tend to join a church they agree with (because it already fits with their personal morality).

There is much truth in the old adage: the only difference between a theist and an atheist is that the atheist disbelieves in one more god than the theist.

 

[tsig]

This is my complaint as well. Skeptics who use the equivalent of the "crocoduck" as if it had merit are making the same category of mistake creationists often do. Frankly, it's embarrassing.

If I hear that bit about iron chariots one more time my head will explode.

What is the skeptics equivalent to the crocoduck? Please tell me so I can avoid this mistake.

 

[Butter!]

What is the skeptics equivalent to the crocoduck? Please tell me so I can avoid this mistake.

I'd also like to know.

Also, I guess I'd better google crocoduck.


ETA - Oh, never mind, I'd heard of that but forgotten. Up to speed!

 

[Trakar]

You are correct. I talk to theists every day. Catholics, southern baptists, pentecostals and guess what, they all tell me different stuff and stuff that differs from what these sophisticated theologists may have to say. And the stuff these folks hear from the pulpit differs from that as well.

I was raised catholic, attended parochial school and taken with the ceremony of it all, considered the priesthood. After puberty hit full force, and a seminary week, I got better.

LOL, yes, when those little Plaid skirts and Blue sweaters start getting filled out with curvy forms, a life of celibacy tends to become a deal breaker for a lot of potential seminarians.

 

[Leumas]

Start here: http://www.chabad.org/asktherabbi/default_cdo/jewish/Ask-the-Rabbi.htm

and then ask them who else you should talk to.

If I were interested in the properties of aluminum vs steel for an engine block, I'd do much the same. Maybe start with a chemist, then see what a metalurgist might say, and if it seemed helpful, ask a machinist or an auto mechanic. Whatever path I took, so long as I was honestly seeking an answer, I'd eventually find out what's understood. This works pretty well as a general method.
This isn't difficult. They are all networked in one broad savannah filled with human knowledge - all those who have come before us and explored the same things we are interested in.

Instead of going to a run of the mill chemist and so forth one ought to go to the BOOKS that they all used to learn.

If I go to a chemist and he tells me something and then the next one tells me something else how do I know which one is correct if any?

One thing wonderful about Chemistry and other fields of science and engineering is that there can be an INDEPENDANT VERIFICATION of what is what and thus one can verify which chemist is wrong in his opinion about chemistry and which one is right.

An easy way is to see which one still has fingerprints and eyebrows intact...

Unlike Chemistry and so forth of the INDEPENDANTLY VERIFIABLE sciences the field of theology cannot be verified in any way independently or rationally.

In the field of biblical theology the Encyclopedia Theologica so to speak is the bible.

If I pick up an encyclopedia and find that every other paragraph in it contradicts current science and even common sense then I will discard that encyclopedia as a reliably valid source of knowledge.

If then someone comes to me saying that he bases his arguments upon that worthless encyclopedia I can rest assured that whatever he has to say might be amusing but most definitely is not reliable.

In Chemistry and other sciences books become obsolete as new information is gleaned and thus become useless other than as interesting artifacts of the past.

Biblical theology is still based upon a book that has been written millennia ago and which has been proven to be obsolete and wrong in almost every field of knowledge.

So I do not need to go ask theologians or laymen.... if they are basing their arguments upon the rotten foundation called the bible then their arguments are already unreliable.

I would not buy a house knowing that its foundations are quick sand regardless of how attractive the decorations or how smooth the salesman trying to sell it to me might be.

A real estate agent trying to sell me a house founded on a pile of crap might be himself fully honest because he has plugged his nostrils so as not to smell the crap, but I can smell the crap and if I am not a desperate self-deluded fool, no amount huckstering and enticing would convince me to buy a pile of crap.

 

[Dinwar]

Has anyone stopped to consider whether the average person in the street that says they believe in evolution will present the same ideas as an evolutionary biologist? Because in my experience, they don't--I have had incredibly frustrating conversations with people who ostensibly agree with me but who make arguments that demonstrate the haven't looked at evolution since middle school, and that was back when they believed sauropods were aquatic. I see no reason to think that the average person in the pew will have any more knowledge of theology than the average person who says they believe in evolution knows about evolutionary biology. Therefore, unless you are willing to say that differences in understanding of evolution among those not educated in the topic disprove evolution, you logically cannot argue that differences in opinions of those not educated in theology disproves theology. I do not believe theology describes the real world, but that particular line of reasoning cannot logically be used to dismiss it. Not without dismissing science as well.

 

[Dinwar]

So I do not need to go ask theologians or laymen.... if they are basing their arguments upon the rotten foundation called the bible then their arguments are already unreliable.

This is the fundamental misunderstanding that saturates this forum. You are not being asked to study theology to determine if it is correct, as you imply. NO ONE has said to do so in this thread, at least not in the past few pages. You are being asked to study theology so you know what the arguments for God are, and what the paradigm the folks you are talking to are working from within is. You are not being asked to agree with anything; you are being asked to UNDERSTAND THE OPPOPSITION.

Your argument is completely and utterly irrelevant to any of the calls to study theology that I've seen in this thread. It addresses an issue completely unrelated to those we have raised.

 

[Butter!]

LOL, yes, when those little Plaid skirts and Blue sweaters start getting filled out with curvy forms, a life of celibacy tends to become a deal breaker for a lot of potential seminarians.

By the time I went to parochial high school, they'd done away with the skirts, and our uniforms consisted of collared dress shirts and career-wear type black slacks, the kind without pockets. Perhaps someone got wise to the correlation you mentioned! The priesthood is ailing in numbers these days, I hear.

 

[marplots]

You are correct. I talk to theists every day. Catholics, southern baptists, pentecostals and guess what, they all tell me different stuff and stuff that differs from what these sophisticated theologists may have to say. And the stuff these folks hear from the pulpit differs from that as well.

I was raised catholic, attended parochial school and taken with the ceremony of it all, considered the priesthood. After puberty hit full force, and a seminary week, I got better.

So, at a guess, I'd think you'd have "different stuff" to say about it as well?

How is this any different than a hundred other things we might find being discussed on the International Skeptics Forum?

 

[marplots]

This is my complaint as well. Skeptics who use the equivalent of the "crocoduck" as if it had merit are making the same category of mistake creationists often do. Frankly, it's embarrassing.

If I hear that bit about iron chariots one more time my head will explode.

What is the skeptics equivalent to the crocoduck? Please tell me so I can avoid this mistake.

I fixed it for you. Are you unfamiliar with that example?

Here ya go: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/iron.html

 

[marplots]

Instead of going to a run of the mill chemist and so forth one ought to go to the BOOKS that they all used to learn.

Yes, the books written by other chemists and so forth. It's the same method.

If I go to a chemist and he tells me something and then the next one tells me something else how do I know which one is correct if any?

You don't, necessarily. What we do is listen, try to understand and make a judgement.

One thing wonderful about Chemistry and other fields of science and engineering is that there can be an INDEPENDANT VERIFICATION of what is what and thus one can verify which chemist is wrong in his opinion about chemistry and which one is right.

An easy way is to see which one still has fingerprints and eyebrows intact...

Unlike Chemistry and so forth of the INDEPENDANTLY VERIFIABLE sciences the field of theology cannot be verified in any way independently or rationally.

If a believer "feels the presence of God," isn't that independent verification? What if two do, or a hundred? Surely a personal experience should have more heft than an article I read in Wikipedia about how lions mate. And yet, strangely, the believer's experiences are poo-pooed as being less worthwhile.

Be careful what you take your standard of proof to be - you might get it.

 

[Leumas]

This is the fundamental misunderstanding that saturates this forum. You are not being asked to study theology to determine if it is correct, as you imply. NO ONE has said to do so in this thread, at least not in the past few pages. You are being asked to study theology so you know what the arguments for God are, and what the paradigm the folks you are talking to are working from within is. You are not being asked to agree with anything; you are being asked to UNDERSTAND THE OPPOPSITION.

Your argument is completely and utterly irrelevant to any of the calls to study theology that I've seen in this thread. It addresses an issue completely unrelated to those we have raised.

I can brag about how many books of theology and comparative religions and philosophy and history of religion and scriptures I have read and I am right now looking at collecting dust on the shelves in my study.

I can brag about how many times I read the bible cover to cover with each reading directed towards a particular theme and as I sift through the NUMEROUS VERSIONS of the bible in FOUR LANGUAGES I can see all the highlights and copious margin-notes and annotations I have done in them.


But all of it is irrelevant..... it is just as meaningful as being an expert on Harry Potterism and having shelves full of books about Harry Potter and different versions of Harry Potter books and in different languages.

In the end it is a meaningless pointless worthless FICTION.... yes I can even take a degree in Literature and specialize in Harry Potter and write my Doctral Thesis about Harry Potter's meaning and significance..... but it is all about a MYTH and FICTION.

It is like Tsig said..... The Emperor's New Clothing.

ETA: In fact Harry Potter is a much more worthy fiction than the Bible.

 

[John Jones]

What is the skeptics equivalent to the crocoduck? Please tell me so I can avoid this mistake.

I wondered about this too. Have I made the skeptics equivalent to the crocoduck already and not known it?

How will I know when I make the skeptics equivalent to the crocoduck?

Inquiring minds, and such.

 

[marplots]

I wondered about this too. Have I made the skeptics equivalent to the crocoduck already and not known it?

How will I know when I make the skeptics equivalent to the crocoduck?

Inquiring minds, and such.

I added it above, but here's an example: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/iron.html

It works a lot like the ol' crocoduck. First, you decide what you want to prove. Next, you shop around for some misunderstanding you can leverage into a proof that seems convincing on the surface. Last, you present your crocoduck as a powerful "gotcha" whenever an opening arises.

So, evolution cannot be true because... wait for it... crocoduck!
And, the bible can't be true because... don't wait this time... God isn't what I've decided He ought to be!

The problem with this stuff is not when it's dismissed, but when it works. If someone thinks crocoduck is a valid renunciation of evolution, they are set up for a big back-peddle once it is explained. So too if someone takes one of the God-gotchas as meaningful criticism, only to find out they've been misled.

ETA: I just noticed a beautiful thing at that link. It says, "Christian Responses (none yet)." Isn't that reminiscent of when the Creationists post a video claiming something like, "10 things Evolutionists can't explain" and then disables comments? Yeah, it smells familiar, doesn't it?